Sunday, December 19, 2010

Palin Versus Every European Foreign Minister

There are many other problems with the treaty, including the limitation on the U.S. ability to convert nuclear systems to conventional systems and the lack of restriction on Russian sea launched cruise missiles. In addition, the recent reports that Russia moved tactical nuclear weapons (which are not covered by New START) closer to our NATO allies, demonstrate that the Obama administration has failed to convince Russia to act in a manner that does not threaten our allies.

Presumably if the treaty left American allies exposed to Russian predations, we'd see a huge outcry from our European friends. But that hasn't happened. In fact, just the opposite: Europe's foreign ministers have all signed onto an op-ed urging ratification.

Here is the complete list of Foreign Ministers who don't realize that they are threatened.

Most European countries don't have a good track record in looking out for their own security issues, let alone those of their neighbors. They bash the U.S. out of one side of their mouth on political policies, while maintaining the expectation that the U.S. should lead and defend if they are threatened.

Let's say that, pick from the list, Slovenia was hypothetically attacked by Russia. I just don't see any others from the list taking decisive, unilateral (or even cooperative) military action to throw Russia out.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has not historically been able to sit at home and let the Europeans take care of themselves--they're not capable. I've not seen any developments that would indicate any change going forward. Appeasement, on the other hand, is something they're good at.

Republican Senators concerned about the large disparity in tactical, short-range nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States rallied behind a treaty-killing amendment that would have inserted a reference to the issue in the preamble of the accord. The amendment was defeated 60-32.

[...]

Democratic Senator Bob Casey said members of both parties were concerned about Russian tactical nuclear weapons but there was a simple reason the New START nuclear treaty did not address them -- because it is an agreement dealing with strategic, or long-range, atomic arms.

Russia is believed to have about 2,000 deployed tactical nuclear weapons, versus 500 for the United States, according to the Federation of American Scientists. U.S. lawmakers fear the weapons are less securely stored and could fall into the hands of extremist groups.

They also fear the Russians are more likely to use them.

"Their military doctrine is to actually use those weapons," said Republican Senator Jon Kyl, who has been a critic of the START agreement. "To the Russians, tactical nuclear weapons are a battlefield weapon just like artillery."

Kyl said U.S. negotiators should have used Russian interest in a new treaty on strategic weapons as leverage to get them to commit to talks on shorter-range nuclear arms.

OBAMA SNOOKERED?

"I don't know whether it was because of a lack of direction from the commander-in-chief or poor negotiation, but one way or another we got snookered," Kyl said. "We got snookered on missile defense. ... We got snookered on tactical nuclear weapons. We got snookered on verification."

Kyl expressed frustration over the Republicans' inability to amend the treaty. Democrats, who are able to block amendments with a majority vote, say a change to the accord or its preamble would effectively kill it by forcing a complete renegotiation with Russia.

"So what are we doing here on a Sunday afternoon?" Kyl said. "I hope ... that our colleagues will consider the prospect of making some changes here ... I don't know why the other side believes that the U.S. Senate is only here as a rubber-stamp."

[...]

the votes needed to approve the treaty and send it to Obama for ratification.

Their comments came even as Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told CNN's "State of the Union" program that he would vote against the agreement.

"I've decided that I cannot support the treaty," McConnell said. "I think the verification provisions are inadequate and I do worry about the missile defense implications of it."

"Could enough of us ever get along?" I doubt it. While I do not think we hate each other, we certainly look at the world differently and don't understand the other one's point of view. It is not easy to square a round peg and vice versa. It would not even be easy for the camp leaders to bring the two camps together. The only way I would support Mr. Romney is to stop Mr. Gingrich from getting the nomination.

Although I am a strong Romney supporter, I like Palin as well. My only problem is that she is young and for me, doesn't have the experience I seek in a President.

I would have no problem with a Romney/Palin ticket. As a VP, it would give Palin a chance to gain the type of experience needed to be a successful President some day. Preferably after two terms of a President Romney.